Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

1. H2H
2. Both can use stadard weopens

Both at peak in the above, who wins how and why?

Hahahaha. Really?

1. Cap 20/10
2. Cap 30/10

Hmm.

Nite Owl has no bullet catching feats.

He loses.

Hahahaha. Cap outran a bullet.

Spite against Nite Owl.

Why do people keep bringing in watchmen characters? Damn before watchmen.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nite Owl wins 10/10

This is spite against Captain America

Cap stomps...

jeez, Cap beats this dude up

Unless this is a "who's a better Batman impersonator" contest Cap wins easy.

Cap wins and never bothers to look up from the book he's reading.

Cap beats Nite Owl to death in both scenarios and then whips Ozymandias because he's bored.

Cap beats him without weapons in scenario 2

Nite Owl isnt close to Caps level, not even close.

Cap gives Nite Owl his shield and still stomps.

Id go so far to say that Cap would beat Nite Owl, Rorshach, The Comedian and Silk Spectre all together.

I 2nd that

Ozzy might be able to hang with Cap but Dreiberg most certainly can`t.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Spite against Nite Owl.
Captain America would make Nite Owl cry after a stern lecture about the American Dream.

Originally posted by Mshinu
Ozzy might be able to hang with Cap but Dreiberg most certainly can`t.

Oh man, that's a good one. Wait...you're serious.

No, Ozzy wouldn't be able to hang with Cap. Not on Cap's worst day.

Id say Ozy would be a good match for Cap, personally. The shield gives Cap a clear advantage, but without it, Id say Ozy would be quite evenly matched with Cap really.

Caps stamina would be the reason I put him above ozy

Not to mention his skill advantage

Ozymandias' skill was World Class, even on more mainstream Marvel/DC levels.

Originally posted by DTM
Ozymandias' skill was World Class, even on more mainstream Marvel/DC levels.

See, that doesn't translate well. As being the best fighter in the world, when there are no other good fighters out there doesn't mean anything. Because Ozy never really had anybody in his skill class to fight and compare against.

Batman's a great martial artist, not only because it was stated that he learned every martial art, but because he routinely fights against high end street leveler martial artists who have feats under their belts.

Ozzy has done nothing impressive because he's fought no one.

Cap on the other hand has tons of feats that put him out of Ozzy's league.

....he catches bullets?

But as a wise man once said....boards don't hit back.

Lol, he catches bullet. Singular. And only fired from a shaky woman with no marksmanship experience. And he's hurt pretty bad after. And he was looking at her with the gun pointed at him before she pulled the trigger.

Cap on the other hand outruns bullets, can probably knock a bullet off course with a shield toss, and has one of the most massive jobber causing auras in comics.

Cap can slap a bullet shot at him back into the barrel with his schlong.

Cap 10/10

Originally posted by Mshinu
Ozzy might be able to hang with Cap but Dreiberg most certainly can`t.

If by hang, you mean get his butt kicked 10/10.

Then yes, Ozy can hang.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If by hang, you mean get his butt kicked 10/10.

Then yes, Ozy can hang.

No, I meant he has good odds of delivering a kicking himself, particularly without the shield being there. Ozzy seems to be imune to the jobber auras of heroes for starters.

Originally posted by Mshinu
No, I meant he has good odds of delivering a kicking himself, particularly without the shield being there. Ozzy seems to be imune to the jobber auras of heroes for starters.

His only chance of delivering a kicking, is if Cap starts the fight with both his legs broken and is chained to a tree.

Originally posted by Mshinu
No, I meant he has good odds of delivering a kicking himself, particularly without the shield being there. Ozzy seems to be imune to the jobber auras of heroes for starters.

What do you mean, immune? No one in Watchmen has a Jobber aura, and no one can contend with the people from Marvel/DC. It's a much weaker universe overall.

Using the suspension of disbelief Ozy can beat Cap in h2h only. With shield Cap has an advantage.

Feats of skill>>>>>>>feats against those with skill
Why?
Because everyone in comics job or perform under there highest ability the majority of the time. It is how you beat someone in comics that makes the difference and not the mere fact that you beat them.


The way Thor beat and treat Surfer in comics is not the way things would go down if Surfer was fighting at his best as shown before. It would be no contest really if the true Surfer showed up.

As far as this fight goes Cap wins.

Qzy doesn't have the fighting feats needed to even get 1/10 against Cap.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Qzy doesn't have the fighting feats needed to even get 1/10 against Cap. Although fighting feats are feats of defending against attacks, fighting feats isn't the only thing needed to prove fighting ability. To assume so is faulty.

I want to address something new.
Many say that Classic Mangog was indestructible to physical forces on the outside or people was giving him durability beyond what he has shown to tank. Why? Because of the suspension of disbelief.

If a character hasn't shown any limits then should we put a limit on them?
If a character was only seen lifting 85tons then should we assume he/she can't lift more? If CA only fought hoodlums, yet was the same person as we know him to be, then does that make him any less skilled than he really is?

With that said, of course you don't give a being who showed no limits an infinite limit. Either we don't argue said character or we choose a very reasonable suspension of disbelief limit for them. But one thing we don't do is assume their limit is equal to the highest they tanked when they never shown a limit.

True, we have a reasonable suspension of belief.

Ozy was a peak human - the best that humans could be. So he has human limitations. We already suspend belief rather substantially with the bullet catching feat.

Cap is beyond human. So....using the suspension of belief, we accredit him higher stats than Ozy.
The reason people keep bringing up the opponents they face, is because all too often in fiction, experience plays a large role in fighting skills (I can't say for real life, because I'm just a keyboard warrior lol). If you have experience fighting much stronger, faster, skilled opponents than yourself (obv not all at once), then you can say that character X is better than character Y, based on their fight history.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
True, we have a reasonable suspension of belief.

Ozy was a peak human - the best that humans could be. So he has human limitations. We already suspend belief rather substantially with the bullet catching feat.

Cap is beyond human. So....using the suspension of belief, we accredit him higher stats than Ozy.
The reason people keep bringing up the opponents they face, is because all too often in fiction, experience plays a large role in fighting skills (I can't say for real life, because I'm just a keyboard warrior lol). If you have experience fighting much stronger, faster, skilled opponents than yourself (obv not all at once), then you can say that character X is better than character Y, based on their fight history.

Experience literally means NOTHING in comics.
We can have a being who lived for thousands of years fighting characters of all types (skilled fighters, super fast beings, super strong beings, etc.) and yet have terrible fighting ability in comparison to someone who only has a few years experience.
Thor vs. Cap is a good example.

Also in comics, characters are often shown to job or perform subpar greatly at times. So IMO it's not who you beat but HOW you beat them that determines fighting skill in my book.

Originally posted by h1a8
Although fighting feats are feats of defending against attacks, fighting feats isn't the only thing needed to prove fighting ability. To assume so is faulty.

I want to address something new.
Many say that Classic Mangog was indestructible to physical forces on the outside or people was giving him durability beyond what he has shown to tank. Why? Because of the suspension of disbelief.

If a character hasn't shown any limits then should we put a limit on them?
If a character was only seen lifting 85tons then should we assume he/she can't lift more? If CA only fought hoodlums, yet was the same person as we know him to be, then does that make him any less skilled than he really is?

With that said, of course you don't give a being who showed no limits an infinite limit. Either we don't argue said character or we choose a very reasonable suspension of disbelief limit for them. But one thing we don't do is assume their limit is equal to the highest they tanked when they never shown a limit.

I'm glad that you admit that Ozy doesn't have the feats needed to beat Cap.

Originally posted by h1a8
Although fighting feats are feats of defending against attacks, fighting feats isn't the only thing needed to prove fighting ability. To assume so is faulty.

I want to address something new.
Many say that Classic Mangog was indestructible to physical forces on the outside or people was giving him durability beyond what he has shown to tank. Why? Because of the suspension of disbelief.

If a character hasn't shown any limits then should we put a limit on them?
If a character was only seen lifting 85tons then should we assume he/she can't lift more? If CA only fought hoodlums, yet was the same person as we know him to be, then does that make him any less skilled than he really is?

With that said, of course you don't give a being who showed no limits an infinite limit. Either we don't argue said character or we choose a very reasonable suspension of disbelief limit for them. But one thing we don't do is assume their limit is equal to the highest they tanked when they never shown a limit.

It's not your job to speculate on the theoretically abilities of a character. If you want to make a case that a character can do something, you need to be able to prove it... if you can't, then that's all that maters. What a character has done is the only thing that of an relevance. Theorizing on hypothetical abilities that a character has never shown is a waste of time. Until a character shows the can do something, they can't. Why on earth should we arbitrarily decided that Ozy is a Captain America level threat even though he was never shown to be? How does that make sense to you? I can speculate on the theoretical abilities of Capatain America just as easy as you can Ozy... which makes such exploits pointless.

Ozy is a big fish in a small pound. He's the top fighter in a mid level promotion. He's Ben Askren. He might be the top guy at welter weight an undefeated fighter in Belator... but in the UFC he wouldn't even be close to top 10. In fact he'd probably be the equivalent of Charlie Brenneman who was just released from the organization because he can't compete on that level. The difference between what Captain America and Ozy have actually done is astronomical. You can speculate that Ozy was never pushed, and we never saw his limitations... but that is irrelevant. Nothing he actually did supports the notion that he would be on par with any top tier street in Marvel or DC.

Captain America is professional level. Ozy is AA.

Cap one punches Nite Owl into a coma.

Also, Ozy is no Askren. He's more like... Scott Blevins

So, everyone agrees that Cap would beat Nite Owl and Ozy at the same time?

Everyone except h1a8

To be fair, he also thinks 2+2=chair.

It's not? Well that means 4+4 doesn't = fish. Emperor Joker lied to me.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
It's not your job to speculate on the theoretically abilities of a character. If you want to make a case that a character can do something, you need to be able to prove it... if you can't, then that's all that maters. What a character has done is the only thing that of an relevance. Theorizing on hypothetical abilities that a character has never shown is a waste of time. Until a character shows the can do something, they can't. Why on earth should we arbitrarily decided that Ozy is a Captain America level threat even though he was never shown to be? How does that make sense to you? I can speculate on the theoretical abilities of Capatain America just as easy as you can Ozy... which makes such exploits pointless.

Ozy is a big fish in a small pound. He's the top fighter in a mid level promotion. He's Ben Askren. He might be the top guy at welter weight an undefeated fighter in Belator... but in the UFC he wouldn't even be close to top 10. In fact he'd probably be the equivalent of Charlie Brenneman who was just released from the organization because he can't compete on that level. The difference between what Captain America and Ozy have actually done is astronomical. You can speculate that Ozy was never pushed, and we never saw his limitations... but that is irrelevant. Nothing he actually did supports the notion that he would be on par with any top tier street in Marvel or DC.

Captain America is professional level. Ozy is AA.

Theorizing goes both ways. If you can't assume a character can do something without showing it then you also can't assume he can't do it when he never shown a limit. If a character has shown a limit then you can assume their limit. But if a character hasn't shown a limit then we either must not discuss said character or choose a reasonable limit supplied by the suspension of disbelief (if possible). This is why people didn't like discussing DCnU Superman when he first appeared.

I highly disagree that if a character hasn't shown something then they can't when it is believable under the suspension of disbelief. For example, Galactus can lift over a million tons but he was never shown to.

Ok, so what is Ozy's limit, being a peak human?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Ok, so what is Ozy's limit, being a peak human?
I would say roughly in the vicinity of batman's limit, under the suspension of disbelief.
CA and IF are above both simply beacuse of their extra enhancements.


You got to admit Ozy on the movie was awesome as hell. He seemed slightly super human. Jumping 30ft away, throwing heavy thrones 30 ft away or more, etc.

Movie Ozy would get destroyed by movie Wade Wilson(pre-upgrade)

Originally posted by Silent Master
Movie Ozy would get destroyed by movie Wade Wilson(pre-upgrade) True

Movie Ozy would also get destroyed by movie Scott Pilgrim, but that's neither here nor there lol.

Movie Ozy was much more than his comic counterpart. Ironically Batman was much less.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Movie Ozy would also get destroyed by movie Scott Pilgrim, but that's neither here nor there lol.

Personally, Id go movie Ozy vs. Scott Pilgrim, even with Scotts sword in hand and Ozy unarmed.

Originally posted by Silent Master
To be fair, he also thinks 2+2=chair. A chair has 4 legs.

So he's right.

Originally posted by Mindset
A chair has 4 legs.

So he's right.

No, he's not

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0PDoKz85G5QxjUAyBOJzbkF?p=rocking+chair&fr=yfp-t-701&ei=utf-8&n=30&x=wrt&y=Search

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AtfA03Rr4iT6WtxxqO15eZCbvZx4?p=three+legged+chair&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

http://www.detnk.com/files/images/Picture%207_52.thumbnail.png

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
http://www.detnk.com/files/images/Picture%207_52.thumbnail.png

I guess Mindset has also never seen office or gamer chairs.